In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Senator Hillary Clinton, twice-elected representative of the people New York, has been told to STFU by Bush's Pentagon. Bush said it's his government, and I think we know by now that he was dead serious.

Edelman seems not to know that the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate. His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior. And you can have no doubt that Edelman is not a uniform wearing member of the military, but rather a BushCo hack...

Edelman apparently got his diplomatic skills from the Dick Cheney school of governance. Since he's a former aide to Cheney, that seems likely.

That some lackey apparatchik in the Pentagon would dare to accuse a United States Senator of "boosting enemy propaganda" is an outrage. Not to mention a really stupid way to respond to one of the people who gets to decide your department's budget.

Edelman is directly contradicted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who testified that debate over Iraq redeployment has been “helpful in bringing pressure to bear on the Maliki government.” Additionally, these “very same Iraqi allies” aren’t unnerved by talk of redeployment, but overwhelmingly favor it — 71 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. troops to withdraw within a year.

And speaking about emboldening the enemy, how's that hunt for Osama going?

What strikes me is that the Pentagon is acknowledging that it determines strategy in reaction to whatever the "enemy propaganda" is. I suppose if al-Sadr told the US military to not jump off a cliff, the Pentagon would immediately order troops to jump off a cliff.

As is inevitable in American politics, the election horseraces this past week have been evaluated on the basis of money raised -- all the more so in how the mainstream media is measuring the Democratic contenders. On Barack Obama's numbers, I cannot count how many times I've heard the words "shocking" and "astonishing" on the few television news programs I can stomach.The numbers aren't really a surprise to me, nor I suspect for anyone who's paying attention to what the people are thinking. The pundits continue to insist on their realities, but here's a milepost where they find themselves way behind the rest of us. We can expect more of that in the coming year.On other words, the revolution in electoral politics orthodoxy will not be televised. At least not until the mainstream media pull their collective heads out and start paying attention to what the people are saying. It's willful ignorance on their parts -- it's not hard to find alternative views, after all -- but sooner or later they will have to realize that Press Club yuks and K Street cocktail parties don't automatically qualify them as authorities on what the people want.And the fundraising numbers are a case in point....On CultureKitchen last Thursday, mole333 wrote:

Some may see it as business as usual, but I see it as a shift in how
politics is functioning. Not a fundamental shift, but still a
significant one.Well, the demise of the Democratic Party has been predicted for some
time...and when Howard Dean became head of the DNC more people than
ever predicted it would spell doom and destruction for the party of the
Donkey.Since then, we did unexpectedly well in 2005 elections (NYC aside).
Then in 2006 we kicked ass. Now it is too early to say what 2008 will
bring, but my gut feelings about our candidates vs. their candidates may be playing out in the most important arena there is: fundraising.

No, it's not because so many people already hate her. It's not because she's married to Bill. And no, it's not because she's a woman.

It can be explained in these two paragraphs of insightful truth from David Mixner:

Today, the Clintons run the political machine trying to save the status quo in the Democratic Party. Their fundraising operation is notorious for its ruthlessness and elitism. Their circle of advisors and friends are tough and aggressive with anyone who refuses to pledge allegiance. They are surrounded by money collectors like Terry McAuliffe who shakedown donors with warnings that they will be punished if they give to another candidate. Senator Clinton's position on the Iraq War is by far the most calculated of any candidate. And on so many other issues, her positions are measured and break no new ground. Each appearance is predictable and perfectly arranged. Whether by necessity or choice, the spontaneity, exuberance and hope we saw in both of the Clintons in 1992 is gone.

In many ways, Senator Barack Obama is today's Bill Clinton. Like Clinton in 1992, he is packing arenas with young voters, campaigning in shirtsleeves, and calling America to believe in a new generation of politics. His candidacy stands in stark contrast to the safe predictable status quo Clinton campaign. Unlike Senator Clinton, he understood the consequences of invading Iraq and refused to support the war from day one. Like President Clinton in 1992, he is mobilizing thousands of cynical and disenfranchised voters and welcoming them back into the Democratic Party.

They just can't seem to stand how Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican contenders for the White House. I can't count how many times I've heard the "expert" reporters on Washington Week, This Week, the NewsHour and other mainstream media outlets crow how Giuliani's private life, support of gay rights and acknowledgment of women's authority over their own bodies mean that he is in for trouble as the primaries approach -- even as his political star rises week by week when it comes to what the people want.While there's no doubt that the front-runners today can't be considered de facto front-runners come 2008 -- witness how Hillary Clinton continues her slow implosion of being right but not very presidential with each and every public appearance -- it's funny how the media treats the candidates.Note how the same pundits claim that Clinton is unstoppable.Thesis: The folks in the media love a good story, and conflict makes for a good story. A Giuliani nomination would be rather dull conflict-wise, since on social issues he's much more like a Democrat. It's hard to paint black-and-white -- "right" vs. "left" -- political storytelling with Rudy carrying the GOP banner. (And if he by chance does win the nomination, then the media figures can delight in how he "defied expectations" -- just their own expectations, but never mind that.)On the other hand, these folks love the idea of a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nod. Then there will certainly be a nice and ugly campaign to cover, full of overblown rhetoric that will make writing political stories so much easier and fun.In other words, the drama the mainstream media are painting arises out of their own preconceptions, their own inside-the-Beltway brand of conventional wisdom.[Personally I don't plan to vote for Rudy, even if he's up against Hillary (who is at best 4th in my Democratic nomination preferences, behind Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson -- and Al Gore, too, if he runs), but he's a hell of a lot less frightening than the brown-nosing John McCain, the two-faced Mitt Romney, the Dominion-minded Sam Brownback, the slicker-than-Willie Newt Gingrich and the other ugly-of-uglies in American politics.]

The Clinton campaign demanded that Obama denounce comments made by the DreamWorks movie studio founder, who told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in Wednesday's editions that while "everybody in politics lies," the former president and his wife "do it with such ease, it's troubling."

The Clinton camp also called on Obama to give back Geffen's $2,300 contribution.

This coming from the campaign of the woman who thinks "taking responsibility" for her support of the Iraq war means bugging her eyes and being offended that anyone would challenge her rather fuzzy stance on the war.

Meanwhile, Bill Richardson just had to pipe in:

Another Democratic presidential candidate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said at the candidate forum that Obama should denounce Geffen's comments. "We Democrats should all sign a pledge that we all be positive," Richardson said.

Nothing like going negative to call for the positive. More circular firing squad behavior from the Democrats. How inspiring.